When I was meeting with my church board and we were working through a potentially ticklish issue or one where there was a strong likelihood of fallout within certain segments of the congregation, I’d often say to them, “When we walk out of this room, we need to make sure we have one voice.” I wanted to make sure congregational confusion didn’t ensue because we, as a board, were sending mixed messages or because people were hearing different accounts from different members of the board. We’d often take time to review matters so we could be on the same page and say, “Here are the issues as best we understand them … here’s where we landed … and here are the reasons why.”
One of the things that often causes problems is when people see what they perceive to be contradictions in the Bible. In fact, I’ve had people question the authenticity of the Bible as a whole because of perceived contradictions. They’ve concluded these discrepancies render it unreliable to where it cannot be trusted.
Perhaps the greatest place where this is evidenced is in the resurrection account … an event so foundational that Paul said if it didn’t happen—if it turns out to be a man-made contrivance or some elaborately concocted ruse—then our faith is useless (1 Cor 15:17). Given its foundational importance, you’d think if there was any section where the gospel writers would seek to get their story straight, it would be the resurrection account.
All four gospel accounts record the resurrection—not surprising, given its importance. But if you’ve read the accounts closely, you’ll notice there are some differences. For instance, Mark says the women visited the tomb just after sunrise (Mk. 16:2) and John says it took place while it was still dark (Jn. 20:1). Luke lists more people as going to the tomb (Lk. 24:10) than John does (Jn. 20:1). All four disagree on who met them at the tomb, Matthew saying it was an angel (Mt. 28:2-7), Mark a young man (Mk. 16:5), Luke two men (Lk. 24:4) and John two angels (Jn. 20:12). There’s also some discrepancy on where those they encountered were located at the tomb site—Matthew saying the angel was sitting on a stone (Mt. 28:2), Mark indicating a young man was sitting inside the tomb (Mk. 16:5), Luke claiming two young men were standing inside (Lk. 24:4), and John alleging two angels were sitting on each end where Jesus was laid (Jn. 20:12).
It’s clear from the four resurrection accounts there are differences. But just because there are differences doesn’t mean there are contradictions or that the Bible is unreliable. In fact—just the opposite. I believe the presence of these differences is proof of the Bible’s veracity and reliability. It lets us know the various documents that make up the Bible are not something people came together and concocted. The original documents at the heart of the Bible are not some manufactured manuscripts that are the product of a group exercise or an editorial process. If that had been the case they, like me when I met with my church board, would have gone to great effort to get their story straight so they could go forward with one voice. The presence of these differences lets us know we’re dealing with legitimate eyewitness accounts.
Imagine a potential court case involving a number of eyewitness testimonies surrounding a serious traffic accident. The person standing one side of the street might have seen things a little bit differently than the person standing somewhere else—their accounts could easily vary. If the accident took place in an urban area and a someone was looking out of an office window, he/she would undoubtedly recount different details and offer a slightly different explanation. There would be small differences in all of their respective accounts. But you wouldn’t conclude that the accident didn’t happen, or that the testimony of each of the witnesses was altogether unreliable. No! What you’d do is find the major parts of the story that have unanimous agreement and realize that those are the things to be believed.
As it relates to the resurrection account, I believe the presence of contradictions—not the absence of them—points to the credibility of what happened. The differences give the various accounts a sense of validity, as it lets you know that the parts of the story that have unanimous agreement—that Jesus died, was buried, was raised from the dead and seen by people—can be trusted as true. And it also lets you know that this book we view as authoritative is not the product of some group of people who huddled up in secret and tried to smooth over the various accounts and edit out the contradictory parts. No! What we have is the testimony of various eyewitnesses who left their accounts intact in spite of the fact that problems could be raised when they were placed side by side. We can trust the Bible not in spite of the seeming contradictions, but because of them.